Wells v. Monsen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wells v. Monsen

7 A.D.3d 518, 775 N.Y.S.2d 586, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6418

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 3, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 A.D.3d 518 (Wells v. Monsen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells v. Monsen, 7 A.D.3d 518, 775 N.Y.S.2d 586, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6418 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an ac[519]*519tion to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 10, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their claims asserted against the defendants Dix Hills Supercenter, Ltd., Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Yoga College of India, Patricia A. Monsen, and Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Bikram College of India, and Yoga Bears, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on their claims asserted against the defendants Dix Hills Supercenter, Ltd., Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Yoga College of India, Patricia A. Monsen and Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Bikram College of India, and Yoga Bears, Inc., based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

As the moving parties, the plaintiffs were required to tender evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant judgment in their favor as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The plaintiffs’ motion was properly denied since the papers submitted in support of their motion were not in admissible form (see CPLR 3212, 4518; Speirs v Not Fade Away Tie Dye Co., 236 AD2d 531 [1997]; Lawlor v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 692 [1990]; Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252 [1984]).

In any event, application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a basis for granting summary judgment in this case would have been inappropriate (see Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219 [1986]; Feuer v HASC Summer Program, 247 AD2d 429 [1998]; Davis v Federated Dept. Stores, 227 AD2d 514 [1996]). Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In an ac[519]*519tion to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Burke, J.), dated July 10, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on their claims asserted against the defendants Dix Hills Supercenter, Ltd., Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Yoga College of India, Patricia A. Monsen, and Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Bikram College of India, and Yoga Bears, Inc.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability on their claims asserted against the defendants Dix Hills Supercenter, Ltd., Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Yoga College of India, Patricia A. Monsen and Peter A. Monsen, individually and doing business as Bikram College of India, and Yoga Bears, Inc., based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.

As the moving parties, the plaintiffs were required to tender evidentiary proof in admissible form sufficient to warrant judgment in their favor as a matter of law (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 [1980]). The plaintiffs’ motion was properly denied since the papers submitted in support of their motion were not in admissible form (see CPLR 3212, 4518; Speirs v Not Fade Away Tie Dye Co., 236 AD2d 531 [1997]; Lawlor v County of Nassau, 166 AD2d 692 [1990]; Krupp v Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 103 AD2d 252 [1984]).

In any event, application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur as a basis for granting summary judgment in this case would have been inappropriate (see Dermatossian v New York City Tr. Auth., 67 NY2d 219 [1986]; Feuer v HASC Summer Program, 247 AD2d 429 [1998]; Davis v Federated Dept. Stores, 227 AD2d 514 [1996]). Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 A.D.3d 518, 775 N.Y.S.2d 586, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6418, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-monsen-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack